Heck, while they're at it, they could make the rotating screen detachable and we would have a tablet. "Da-ad, where's the screen for our iMac??" "Oops, now where did I put that darn thing...."
max, if your goal is to get a portrait sheet of reg. size paper to display on a screen, then the rotating 15" is perfect. if i remember correctly, the 17" weren't even tall enough by about a quarter inch.
have you ever actually gone and held up a sheet of paper to a monitor? you'll get your answer real quick.
15" rotating is a hell of a lot cheaper to boot. can't remember the last time i read through more than 3 hardware threads w/o having to listen to someone bitch about price, only to come here and have everyone saying "just go for the 17", who cares?"
good god, keep that thinking up and machines will always cost a fortune.
there are plenty of people who would rather have a rotating 15" over a stationary 17" with only $250 difference in price.
for example, a 15" viewsonic runs $350, 17" is $570.
that's too much to pay for a difference of 1024x768 to 1280x1024
Any article where they spell the word "despite" as "dispite" isn't worth the pixels it occupies. I stopped reading as soon as I saw the misspelling. Why is it that morons who pull this shit can never spell.
you have to think about the RD and engineering costs! it would (surely!) cost more to develop a new arm that can rotate the display and build a graphics card that would support this! rather than attaching a 17" display and fix the proper power usage settings and to counter balance the bottom of the imac
it's my personal preference to have a 17" display over a rotating 15" display. i won't claim to know what others want, so i (we) should leave it at that...
anyways, as has been pointed out numerous times already, steve has said that there are no graphics cards that support this
i'm not doubting the feasibility of a rotating screen. i'm sure that it could be done (i'm sure steve is full of sh!t)
but the fact that steve said it can't be done probably means that, even though it could be done, he's not going to implement it in the imacs...it's not a feature that he wants to introduce
and there doesn't seem to be an obvious demand for it. it's one of those neat tricks that consumers wouldn't have much of a need for
*i would pay for the 17", but just because i am tired of my PB screen. that's just me*
I'd rather have a 17" LCD. Rotating is a neat gimmick, but more important to me is being able to have two word documents side by side. I can do that with a 17" LCD, but not with a 15".
All in all, a moot point, since I'd rather buy a 19" (18" viewable) flat screen CRT for half the price of an LCD. LCDs are over rated, IMO.
Yep, how about vertical mame games, you would get a much larger game screen. Desktop publishing was the reason for the first portrait apple display and that will still hold now.
1. better viewing of an illegal arcade emulator does not warrant the R&D.
2. I'm a graphic designer and I have never seen one of these rotating screens.
I think it's pretty obvious that this won't happen.
Rotating screens are after-market niche hardware. Nothing more.
2. I'm a graphic designer and I have never seen one of these rotating screens.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were pretty common back in the day. Apple had the Portrait Display - a 16 grayscale monitor (640x870) back in the day when you could hardly pick up a Mac for less than $6k.
Portrait monitors hung on for a while - but people didn't like them because they were so narrow - spreadsheets weren't very good, and many other apps were problematic. Radius introduced the Pivot Monitor which took care of both problems - a 15" portrait aspect monitor that pivoted. It was pretty handy, actually, and sold pretty well. Cost effective 16" and 18" monitors eventually killed it off.
Lots of graphic designers started with pivots until they could afford the two-page (21+ inch) displays.
<strong>Yep, how about vertical mame games, you would get a much larger game screen. Desktop publishing was the reason for the first portrait apple display and that will still hold now.
1. better viewing of an illegal arcade emulator does not warrant the R&D.
2. I'm a graphic designer and I have never seen one of these rotating screens.
I think it's pretty obvious that this won't happen.
Rotating screens are after-market niche hardware. Nothing more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow its easy to see how these forums become such a waste of time sometimes, with people just crapping on about stuff and slagging people off.
1) Mame itself is not illegal, and there are pd games
2) Well just goes to show you might not know it all... until the cinema display came along a portrait display would be great for Quark or Indesign, of course a 23" HDCD is the way to go now..
Try keeping to the question at hand which was, "Can anyone give a reason why anyone would want a rotating iMac screen?"
Radius introduced the Pivot Monitor which took care of both problems - a 15" portrait aspect monitor that pivoted. It was pretty handy, actually, and sold pretty well. Cost effective 16" and 18" monitors eventually killed it off.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually they had a 17" Pivot not that long ago (of course I think that was after the Radius name had been sold once or twice so it wasn't substantially the same company or product.
give me ONE app that allows for rotated screens on Mac OS X!
I'm the proud and extremely satisfied owner of a LaCie Photon18 TFT display. It can be rotated mechanically but you still need to switch res yourself. There's a patched version of good ol' Radius' Pivot software from the late 80s that will let you rotate the screen in software. But that one only runs MacOS 9 (and not very well) only supports thousands of colors for higher resolutions and offers no accelleration in rotated mode. (Back in the days or Radius Pivot and Color Pivot Screens that swithed automatically via ADB connection rotating screens was cool.)
Despite that I have hardly a use to rotate my screen even if it were possible with supporting software. Heck I might just lie in bed and have my screen rotated so it matches my head on the pillow! NOW I understand what this feature was really intended for! :-)
Another thing is the movement of an iMac display. If you move the display to it's very bottom position it's not really far away from your desk and CD tray. Apple wouldn't allow the display to hit the floor when moved forward down and obstruct the optical drive's tray. It woulsn't work out with the 15" and even less with a bigger display.
If Apple is really going to increase screen size for the iMac it might just be a higher resolution of a 15" display. Just like they did with the TiBook. Same size, higher resolution. Anyway shoudl they really alter the form factor of the display it's going to be widescreen. It's just Apple's way and it's a more natural viewing area as well.
Come whatever, I'll be watching the keynote's QuickTime stream from my PowerBook on my widescreen TV, having some crisps and a beer. :-)
<strong>I'm not saying no one had one, I'm just saying that I don't think they were as popular as you claim.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the late '80s and early '90s I can assure you that there were a lot of them out there - especially in design shops.
[quote]<strong>And I think you'll find that a very, very small minority of design firms can afford dual 21" or a 23" LCD display for their designers.
LCDs are still kind of 'no nos' for pre-press.
Not to mention, that for the most part, us designers are viewing double page spreads.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the original two page monochrome display and the subsequent 21" color display, which outside of the portrait display were the only monitors that could show a full A4 page vertically were similar in price to the 23" LCD, IIRC.
So there wasn't a lot of ground in monitors that could show 870 high, and a lot of design houses couldn't afford these systems. Remember, it was easy to drop $13,000 on a Mac IIfx and a 2 page display (that was roughly the base price of those two items). So a Radius pivot display on a Mac IIci was a great solution at half the price in that it got you to 870 high and you could swing it over to landscape as well. It was what got a lot of us into publishing.
Comments
just give us the 17" imac and we'll (i'll) be happy
have you ever actually gone and held up a sheet of paper to a monitor? you'll get your answer real quick.
15" rotating is a hell of a lot cheaper to boot. can't remember the last time i read through more than 3 hardware threads w/o having to listen to someone bitch about price, only to come here and have everyone saying "just go for the 17", who cares?"
good god, keep that thinking up and machines will always cost a fortune.
there are plenty of people who would rather have a rotating 15" over a stationary 17" with only $250 difference in price.
for example, a 15" viewsonic runs $350, 17" is $570.
that's too much to pay for a difference of 1024x768 to 1280x1024
CRT's are $110 and $142 respectively.
[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
Cretins.
it's my personal preference to have a 17" display over a rotating 15" display. i won't claim to know what others want, so i (we) should leave it at that...
anyways, as has been pointed out numerous times already, steve has said that there are no graphics cards that support this
YOU DO NOT NEED GRAPHICS CARD SUPPORT FOR A ROTATING MONITOR
there are at least half a dozen software programs that will rotate the screen for you. it does not have to be supported by the graphics card.
besides that, i think steve might just be full of shit. he's not God, despite what some might think.
still think it can't be done? go to Best Bey, they have at least two or three models on display that *gasp* rotate.
go figure.
edit: yeah, but would you rather pay the $250 more for the machine with the 17" monitor?
would you rather have a 17" for $1,950 or a 15" that rotates for $1,699?
[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
but the fact that steve said it can't be done probably means that, even though it could be done, he's not going to implement it in the imacs...it's not a feature that he wants to introduce
and there doesn't seem to be an obvious demand for it. it's one of those neat tricks that consumers wouldn't have much of a need for
*i would pay for the 17", but just because i am tired of my PB screen. that's just me*
All in all, a moot point, since I'd rather buy a 19" (18" viewable) flat screen CRT for half the price of an LCD. LCDs are over rated, IMO.
1. better viewing of an illegal arcade emulator does not warrant the R&D.
2. I'm a graphic designer and I have never seen one of these rotating screens.
I think it's pretty obvious that this won't happen.
Rotating screens are after-market niche hardware. Nothing more.
<strong>
2. I'm a graphic designer and I have never seen one of these rotating screens.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were pretty common back in the day. Apple had the Portrait Display - a 16 grayscale monitor (640x870) back in the day when you could hardly pick up a Mac for less than $6k.
Portrait monitors hung on for a while - but people didn't like them because they were so narrow - spreadsheets weren't very good, and many other apps were problematic. Radius introduced the Pivot Monitor which took care of both problems - a 15" portrait aspect monitor that pivoted. It was pretty handy, actually, and sold pretty well. Cost effective 16" and 18" monitors eventually killed it off.
Lots of graphic designers started with pivots until they could afford the two-page (21+ inch) displays.
<strong>Yep, how about vertical mame games, you would get a much larger game screen. Desktop publishing was the reason for the first portrait apple display and that will still hold now.
1. better viewing of an illegal arcade emulator does not warrant the R&D.
2. I'm a graphic designer and I have never seen one of these rotating screens.
I think it's pretty obvious that this won't happen.
Rotating screens are after-market niche hardware. Nothing more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow its easy to see how these forums become such a waste of time sometimes, with people just crapping on about stuff and slagging people off.
1) Mame itself is not illegal, and there are pd games
2) Well just goes to show you might not know it all... until the cinema display came along a portrait display would be great for Quark or Indesign, of course a 23" HDCD is the way to go now..
Try keeping to the question at hand which was, "Can anyone give a reason why anyone would want a rotating iMac screen?"
(Being a good chap, I put it back. Took me a while.)
<strong>
Radius introduced the Pivot Monitor which took care of both problems - a 15" portrait aspect monitor that pivoted. It was pretty handy, actually, and sold pretty well. Cost effective 16" and 18" monitors eventually killed it off.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually they had a 17" Pivot not that long ago (of course I think that was after the Radius name had been sold once or twice so it wasn't substantially the same company or product.
Edit: typos
[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: BobtheTomato ]</p>
<strong>being able to view more of the page isn't much of a reason for your basic dumb consumer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's me!
<strong>Can anyone give a reason why anyone would want a rotating iMac screen?
I mean like, a *real* reason.
being able to view more of the page isn't much of a reason for your basic dumb consumer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, isn't that precisely what the sales pitch is for a 17" iMac?
As noted above, I think it is a genuine advantage. While I'm not likely to buy an iMac, a rotating screen might tip it.
Although if I'm really honest would probably be cannibalising a PowerBook or G4 sale.
give me ONE app that allows for rotated screens on Mac OS X!
I'm the proud and extremely satisfied owner of a LaCie Photon18 TFT display. It can be rotated mechanically but you still need to switch res yourself. There's a patched version of good ol' Radius' Pivot software from the late 80s that will let you rotate the screen in software. But that one only runs MacOS 9 (and not very well) only supports thousands of colors for higher resolutions and offers no accelleration in rotated mode. (Back in the days or Radius Pivot and Color Pivot Screens that swithed automatically via ADB connection rotating screens was cool.)
Despite that I have hardly a use to rotate my screen even if it were possible with supporting software. Heck I might just lie in bed and have my screen rotated so it matches my head on the pillow! NOW I understand what this feature was really intended for! :-)
Another thing is the movement of an iMac display. If you move the display to it's very bottom position it's not really far away from your desk and CD tray. Apple wouldn't allow the display to hit the floor when moved forward down and obstruct the optical drive's tray. It woulsn't work out with the 15" and even less with a bigger display.
If Apple is really going to increase screen size for the iMac it might just be a higher resolution of a 15" display. Just like they did with the TiBook. Same size, higher resolution. Anyway shoudl they really alter the form factor of the display it's going to be widescreen. It's just Apple's way and it's a more natural viewing area as well.
Come whatever, I'll be watching the keynote's QuickTime stream from my PowerBook on my widescreen TV, having some crisps and a beer. :-)
Lots of graphic designers started with pivots until they could afford the two-page (21+ inch) displays.
Well, I've only been around it since ~97 or so - but I'll repeat that I have never seen one, nor ever heard of anyone owning one . . .
I'm not saying no one had one, I'm just saying that I don't think they were as popular as you claim.
I'm not saying more screen real estate isn't important - it is. I'm saying rotating the format isn't.
Still, benefit/cost is not great enough to warrant the possibly great pains of engineering it into the iMac.
and I think you'll find that a very, very small minority of design firms can afford dual 21" or a 23" LCD display for their designers.
LCDs are still kind of 'no nos' for pre-press.
Not to mention, that for the most part, us designers are viewing double page spreads.
(edit: fixed the <i> tags, added some afterthoughts)
[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: cinder ]</p>
<strong>I'm not saying no one had one, I'm just saying that I don't think they were as popular as you claim.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the late '80s and early '90s I can assure you that there were a lot of them out there - especially in design shops.
[quote]<strong>And I think you'll find that a very, very small minority of design firms can afford dual 21" or a 23" LCD display for their designers.
LCDs are still kind of 'no nos' for pre-press.
Not to mention, that for the most part, us designers are viewing double page spreads.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the original two page monochrome display and the subsequent 21" color display, which outside of the portrait display were the only monitors that could show a full A4 page vertically were similar in price to the 23" LCD, IIRC.
So there wasn't a lot of ground in monitors that could show 870 high, and a lot of design houses couldn't afford these systems. Remember, it was easy to drop $13,000 on a Mac IIfx and a 2 page display (that was roughly the base price of those two items). So a Radius pivot display on a Mac IIci was a great solution at half the price in that it got you to 870 high and you could swing it over to landscape as well. It was what got a lot of us into publishing.
Do you think the rotate feature is still valid today, though?